Until I came across one of his last posts I was unaware of "reader". I have read all of his posts some 80 plus. Some observations of particular note. He is obviously well spoken and very intelligent. In all of his posts on various threads he is nonconfrontational. It seems that he has particular knowledge and on occasion he provides hints. He is every bit as credible as Isaac.

Are we talking about the same Reader? Well spoken? Ha! Yes I admit that for the most part he is non confrontational. But that behavior has absolutely no indication of intelligence. As a matter of fact it may indicate a lack of confidence in one's own grasp of the subject. The guy is certainly not well spoken. He is somewhat hard to understand. He says he's German and that may account for his lack of eloquence. I can't believe you can compare this guy with Isaac who I read as a very intelligent man who is very able to convey abstract and very deep thoughts

It always amazes me that the pro hoaxers are so against all of the Isaac/ drone evidence and so easily discount all of it but will so quickly latch onto anything strange that remotely supports their odd conclusion.

I guess we'll have to wait and see but what I think is happening is we are witnessing a member beginning to implode.

Since I do not have tons of extra time, I have concentrating on the Ty Big Basin photos. Of all the drone photos, in the eyes of an novice, this series of photos appear to be the easiest to manipulate.

It appears that Ty sent in “photographs” (on photo paper) according to the statement made by LMH. I quote her:

“June 17, 2007 Big Basin, California - In yesterday's post office mail, I received twelve more images of the latest, more menacing-looking dragonfly-shaped aerial "drone," along with a letter mailed on June 11, 2007, from an eyewitness named Ty. He had also emailed me on June 11, telling me that he was sending photographs he had taken while bicycling with a group of riders near Saratoga, California, in Big Basin.”

Therefore, it has been assumed that the photos were taken with a non-digital camera. I believe that is not the case.

If you look at the high-res photo, which we can assume was scanned by LMH (or her staff… hey Linda, clean you scanner or was the “dust debris” already in the photo?), we can see parallel lines through the feelers (on the top of the drone), through the blue colored edges of the drone components and through some of the drone components themselves.

According to some experts I have spoken with, these lines are generated when you enlarge a digital picture. Why are the lines there? It has something to do with how the CCD receives, processes the image and records it.

If LMH scanned the photo and did not over enlarge it, these lines should not be visible and a 100% enlargement and they are in the high-res version. Therefore, number one, you have to assume that the original camera used to capture the drone was a digital one.

Number two, the odd thing that was noticed is on the trees. What little of the trees that can be seen in the high-res photo, do not show any parallel lines… even in the blue areas. It is almost as if the drone has been over enlarged and the trees have not. Without the whole high-res photo, one can not be conclusive, but it opens the possibility that the drone may have been pasted in to the photo (and is not really there, even though I thought it was).

So, if this Arthur -- the UT professor - from this website is the one who is being accused of hoaxing this (which I really doubt) it is interesting nonetheless that on his personal website (you can google him to find it) he has his "favorite website" button which comes up as Whitley Streiber's Dreamland -- and he also has a dream journal on his site with many dreams similar to those posted on this casebook. So, he is someone that knows the UFO community (possibly) and/or it could be that he is just pretending to have been the hoaxer, or whoever READER is, has the wrong person.... either way, where is the proof.

Can you illustrate the parallel lines you speak of? It was never said what kind of camera Ty used. It could be digital or film. LMH has stated she received 12 5x7 prints along with the typed letter from Ty B. So the hi rez photo could be considered an enlargement. I guess it all depends on how you view it on your monitor. Parallel lines could be explained by anomalies with LMH's scanner or Ty's printer.

One thing you should consider in all this are Steven's photos which captured the same object in the same location on the same day from a different vantage point. How would that figure into a fake Ty photo theory?

Latitude. Honestly, I never said anything about Reader should be believed without proof. I think it is fair enough that someone is given time to explain themselves is it not? Reader has made some very valid arguments and observations in the past, so I have no reason currently not to allow him that time, even if he is being a little evasive. What is the rush?

(Note: I started writing this some hours ago but had to leave it because I went out. On return, reader has explained himself, and I see what he was doing. My above comments stand, and he did explain his posts... see)

As for evidence of it being real, well all I can say is that it is evidence without any substantiation or verification. So such hopes should not be pinned upon it. You have to understand, that no one who believes that it could be a hoax pin hopes on that. The hope for anyone is that it is real, and this whole silly tension between the two camps shouldn't exist.

If some light can be shed on this case that leads in one direction or the other, then everyone should welcome it.

There is no enlightenment to be gained from a lie. To invest such hopes and dreams without verification is detrimental to the study of this entire phenomenon. To believe this is real, is only so much a gut feeling as to believe it is a hoax, and the given 'evidence' is proof of nothing without verification. I don't see how you can argue otherwise!

...'what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.'

I see the anomaly you are pointing out. It's a moire pattern and it is real bad in the low res scans. I think it is a distortion induced by LMH's scanner. If she is using a cheap scanner that would do it. If she is I hope she has those prints professionally scanned or better yet have the negatives scanned.

That last post is very good. I agree with most of it. I'm in no rush to judge Reader. If you read my last reply on the subject to Gort you will see in the last sentence I said we will have to wait and see. I thought it was Gort who was rushing to believe Reader is correct. Certainly sys_config is already convinced Reader is correct.

Can you illustrate the parallel lines you speak of? It was never said what kind of camera Ty used. It could be digital or film. LMH has stated she received 12 5x7 prints along with the typed letter from Ty B. So the hi rez photo could be considered an enlargement. I guess it all depends on how you view it on your monitor. Parallel lines could be explained by anomalies with LMH's scanner or Ty's printer.

One thing you should consider in all this are Steven's photos which captured the same object in the same location on the same day from a different vantage point. How would that figure into a fake Ty photo theory?

I will have to wait till this weekend to post pictures, long story (we are having carpeting installed and my computer is taken apart).

I am not ready to say what is okay or not, I am just sharing what I have heard and then getting feedback on it here. I will get some examples together this weekend unless someone beats me to it.

Latitude. Honestly, I never said anything about Reader should be believed without proof. I think it is fair enough that someone is given time to explain themselves is it not? Reader has made some very valid arguments and observations in the past, so I have no reason currently not to allow him that time, even if he is being a little evasive. What is the rush?

(Note: I started writing this some hours ago but had to leave it because I went out. On return, reader has explained himself, and I see what he was doing. My above comments stand, and he did explain his posts... see)

As for evidence of it being real, well all I can say is that it is evidence without any substantiation or verification. So such hopes should not be pinned upon it. You have to understand, that no one who believes that it could be a hoax pin hopes on that. The hope for anyone is that it is real, and this whole silly tension between the two camps shouldn't exist.

If some light can be shed on this case that leads in one direction or the other, then everyone should welcome it.

There is no enlightenment to be gained from a lie. To invest such hopes and dreams without verification is detrimental to the study of this entire phenomenon. To believe this is real, is only so much a gut feeling as to believe it is a hoax, and the given 'evidence' is proof of nothing without verification. I don't see how you can argue otherwise!

...'what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.'

Quote- Derren Brown.

Salad, your Derren Brown would do far better to include Plato's cave allegory in his discourse.

Let me argue your point that what we have needs proof:

What we have are real photos of drones posted to the internet, real witnesses, one real whistle blower named Isaac, real copies of documents, real scanned pictures of alien artifacts and one hell of a real diagram with alien symbols.

That's reality Salad as it stands now.. It's up to you to prove different !